tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 2, 2014 6:00am-8:01am EDT
paul ryan talked about this year's congressional elections to the 2016 presidential race, immigration policy, tax reform and reaction to its proposal to fight poverty. he also commented on house republicans lost against the president and talk of impeachment. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> going to have to get something new to do it. and ginger, i tell you. how you doing? >> good. here we go, guys. thanks for coming. our guest today is representative paul ryan, chairman of the house budget committee. his last visit was in february of 2012, we thank him for coming
back. working with a staffer when still in college at miami university. after graduation our guest was a speechwriter who worked for america's think tank. later told an activist conservative, the most conservative. according to the almanac of american politics representative ryan worked on capitol hill as a legislative director for sam brownback and moonlighted as a waiter and fitness trainer in 1998 at the ripe old age of 28 was elected to congress and became chairman of the budget committee in 2011 and he was the republican party vice-presidential nominee in 2012. the biographical portion of the program, the compelling
reputation of ronald. please no live bloging when the breakfast is underway. to help you care of that urge we will e-mail pictures of the session to all reporters here when the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you want to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal. we will talk with the time we have available. we will offer the opportunity to make an opening comments. thanks again for doing this. >> my pleasure, thank you. i want to talk about what i recently proposed with our mobility project and it is an opportunity. i spent the last year-and-a-half or so touring the country listening to people who are doing a phenomenal job fighting
poverty and learning about different ideas out there thaw. the federal government and its programs, looking for any evidence or studies of success and conducting half a dozen hearings in the budget committee, the current government's position programs and so war on poverty, and the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty when we had the highest poverty rates in a generation. the highest poverty rates since we have been recording it. my thinking was we had to do something different and better and when you take a look at it, the 30,000 foot view, we have more or less measure is excess in the war on poverty based on efforts, how much money we spent, how many programs we create, not on results, not on outcomes. when you take a look at it, what we are offering is more focus on
outcomes, success and putting the federal government in its proper place in having to advocate what works. the biggest policy is the opportunity grant which gives states the ability to conduct innovative reforms and ways to get from welfare to work. it consolidates 11 different programs in a single funding stream, it is not just a loose string block grants. the states do a few things, number one they have to target the money to people in need. they can't use it to pass budgets in areas like roads or bridges. people who can work need to work and one thing we learned is moving people to work is the best way to get people out of poverty and onto a better life. number 3, families in need need to have a choice. you can't just use a government monopoly to provide services. of all the things we learned there are phenomenal group said
the local level who have done a phenomenal job of transitioning people into lives of self-sufficiency and opportunity. we move through social services, america works, you have to break up the monopoly of service and give families in need a choice and then you need to set the result. that is the one thing we don't do very well, to determine whether what we do is actually effective use reaching its objective so we need to test the results. case management is one of the things we recommend, not mandates because that is extremely effective because what it does is it makes it customized and direct. each person has different problems. poverty is complicated and having a system of accountability, having a system of customization where someone works with a case worker actually helps give benefit and
the plan and the best way of getting a person on to a better life where they want to go. that to me is one of the best things we can do. we stopped short of carrying these reforms in 1996 and another round of reforms are needed. and number of other things we propose that other colleges that are smart and recidivism reform. we need to do accreditation reform to bring more competition to hire education and sources of tuition inflation, and the program in need of reform should look into that. and we propose a number of spending cuts, programs that are wasteful or fraudulent to try and pull young adults into the work force.
and people who stopped looking for work, it is very acute among younger people land by raising a thousand dollars, one of the programs that really helps hold people to the work force so there are number of ideas we put out. the whole point of this was to start a conversation. to start a conversation, focus on solutions fast with an eye for actual objective results outcomes and that means if we are going to invest his time and money let's do it in a way that works with local charities and civil society and doesn't displace and recognizes. on the ground of people on the front line may know a thing or two. wishy uncomplicate this budget behind that and test results and go with what works. that is the kind of conversation we want to have. if we can have that conversation which is what we are trying to
start here, putting in place solutions to make a difference. i will leave it at that. this is one of the issues i am working on and we can talk about it things as well. >> let me talk about your plan for a moment and ask about how you accept the response to it would seem to me to fall in categories of mechanical policy oriented. i will blather here. the budget and policy priorities raise the number of objections and one of them is over time things their block grant like, you said it was a block grant, block grant like typically shrinks, the whole investment par issue program down 60% so there is that objection. another objection comes from people who feel they are giving greater power over poverty and school assistance, states that
have not been particularly warm hearted might be a problem. charles lowe of the new york times said the poorer states in the country consistently vote for republican candidates, have republican governors and these of the same states that refuse to expand medicaid under the affordable care act and finally fellow conservatives, rep paul ryan graftons of and a cloak of compassion, proposing government coaches for those in poverty. any chance of getting anything done before the 2016 election? >> i will start with the last one. okay. first of all, hard-working taxpayers deserve some accountability. the pledge generous with their tax dollars and say to the government is only right and appropriate to expect something
in return if they're going to send their money, and helping people at a party there's nothing wrong with having some accountability so that people use their generosity as a way to get out of poverty so having accountability for the kind of assistance people are getting is wholly appropriate and what taxpayers would want. we are not talking about government service provider but breaking of the government service providing a monopoly suppose that groups that are successful already helped get people from where they are to where they want to be. i would argue this is an extension of principles using welfare reform. going to .2, going to .2, suggesting states that didn't take them medicate 1-size-fits-all top down expansion which is going to be an unfunded mandate is the same thing as not wanting to be able to help poor people in your
state, that completely misses the point and adds an insult to the notion here. we started waivers and had welfare to work and it was extremely successful in moving people from welfare to work. these are the kinds of proposals we are talking about here and it is the opposite of a medicaid obama care expansion which is todd down by federal government, we're trying to go with an approach to go with what works, respect local people, respect other groups like non-profits, for profits, if getting people on their feet again and so the whole point is it brings accountability to the taxpayer by saying to a person receiving the benefit there's something expected in return. we expect to use the assistance to actually work to treat your addiction or deal with the problem you have so there is accountability for these dollars which in many ways is not there
today and i believe by giving local groups the ability to customize a need, to fight poverty and get people to the status quo which is indispensable. the first point this isn't the first time we have had differences on issues. as far as the budget is concerned i didn't want to get into a funding debate over proper funding levels of the status quo. let's figure out how to reform it and then figure out what funding levels to fund it at and have that conversation at another time. >> last one from me. there is a lot of talk about your deliberations between running for president while beating the ways and means committee that has an impact on so many economic issues you care
about. >> i am just doing my job, focusing on the here and now, 2014 and the problems facing our country now. i constantly have to not think about my personal ambitions or personal career moves or how i can think about something after 2014. i am focusing on policy right now. in 2015 at the appropriate time we will sit down and have a proper deliberation and conversation that is necessary for that but now we are focused unless i can do in my job today. that is a better use of my time and more faithful to the people i am representing. >> we will talk with craig gilbert, michael bender, damian paula, kevin hall. >> one of the reactions to your
plan was your budget in many ways was defined by spending cuts and people took from this plan reform and delay. how are other people going to respond and just thinking about the budget side of us things? >> i tried getting into this last point. if i just went into another budget conversation all we would be talking about our numbers and statistics and not reforms. we can have another debate about the status quo in funding levels of the status quo, that is a sides that. is another point. let's talk about how to reform with an eye for results and the fact is these reforms could occur under any spending level and we could have that debate at
the proper time. i stand behind our budget. it is very important for economic growth, a board mobility and the future of our country that we paid down the debt because we are heading into a debt crisis. we have to get our hands on that. this debate i am trying to start should be about how to reform and how the programs work. you could find it at any level you want. let's talk about how to fix these broken programs. >> lisa? people back here, thanks. >> how many plans -- explain to us a real-life example of people, working parent working 40 hours a week at one or two
minimum wage jobs. how does your plan help? >> in case management, something we recommend. there is a young woman i sat down with at the local charity office and she became homeless in her teens, her parents more or less abandoned her, she lives in sharon, wisconsin, a rural town in the middle of the district represented, she has other problems in her life and catholic charities that down with her and put together a life plan and looked at the need she had and the problems she had aspirations she had. she had chosen profession she wants to get into in the medical field and they basically helped her find a minimum wage job and also make her benefits of lot of which were catholic charities
aside from government assistance to get her the ged she needed, to get her into the job she needed and algae has a job and is going to school and is getting married and putting her life together and is studying to go into the chosen profession she had. a person sitting down and understanding all of her problems and coming up the plan to help her get from where she is to wish you wants to be, she would not have done that, would have remained homeless but not she is getting married, getting the profession she wants and is a happy person building a fulfilling life for herself. i could go on. >> still poverty level wages? >> she has a low-income job but benefits where she is going to school and she has a very good opportunity to get the degree she needs to get the career she wants that will get her out of poverty. not as if there is some silver bullet bill we can pass to get people out of poverty. can you help people get
themselves out of poverty, give them the assistance, the tools they need. the problem with all these programs is you piled them up and in many ways they discourage people to go to work. they give people disincentive that says if i go to work which is less secure i will lose -- $0.80 in the dollar and benefits. you need to have a system that encourages work, that helps people understand that it is always -- customize benefits to a particular need. one person might need child care or might need education or an addiction or might have character issues where they have to learn about the skills you need to hold a job. some people have a temporary problem, death and the family of layoffs and need a quick helping hand. they are all different. the point is we should respect
those differences and come up with more customized aides to get people where they need to be and measure results, pulled accountability and transparency. so that is the point. there are so many groups doing amazing things. . camping indianapolis, a neighborhood in indianapolis with high crime, high murder rate. there it is a big camp bringing young men many of whom are coming out of prison, going through and learning about the kinds of things they need to do to become good providers, good family members, productive members of society and working with local employers to get good jobs. it works. it is successful. let's help encourage more of these good works. from a philosophical point of view in many cases the federal
government in at fervently displaces civil society with good things happening in communities when it should be supporting them. getting supply lines. the other point is this notion in society that this isn't your problem. the government will fix it. the government fixes' poverty. that is not true. we need to break those notions so everybody gets involved and does something in any way they can to make a difference in this area and that is one of the messages we need over and over again if we are going to be successful in reintegrating and helping people get from where they are to where they want to be. >> mr. chairman you describe the programs about the outcomes and at the same time this is perceived as less than
compassionate. the programs you envision a streamlined, to be means tested for those who are genuinely in need? >> that is one of the things we require. they have to be a necessity. states can't just take it and spend it on other things. they have to go toward the core. we just measure success based on influence with how much money are we throwing at a problem and how many new programs to recreate in washington? we are not measuring success based on outcomes. of getting people into working to into good careers, not a job but a career? are we lowering the unemployment rate? are we increasing economic mobility? and we need to measures these things so that we can replicate successful outcomes, so that we can scale things up. that is the point and we fell into this trap that great ideas come in washington and create a new program and have a bureaucrat when that is not working and there are so many
things that are out there in our states and communities that could be laboratories of great ideas many of which already exist today and could make a big difference. >> i just want to see -- >> specifics. specific requirements that we require. it has got to be targeted to people. you have to -- those who can work need to work. work means work at related activities, work, work training and work search. numbers 3, break up the monopoly and give families a choice among providers. outcomes for people in number 4 have an independent third-party that has agreed by the federal government to provide these resources and state governments to measure and track outcomes to keep it honest and transparent so that we can not only have accountability but measure outcomes so we can find out what
works well. >> i there any -- any reforms that will get you to authorize? >> i have heard that conversation before. we asked them to reform years ago and they didn't do so, so we had the debate about reforming their activities and in many cases they fail to produce these reforms. i do believe it is representational from their crony capitalism we have in washington. big government and big business joining in a common cause and i believe we as republicans should be pro market, not necessarily pro-business. from market is fighting for equal access to opportunity, the
rule of law, self-government and fairness and when most of the money goes to really large connected companies a lot of it just goes to one company. that to me is not the quality of the law. that to me isn't free enterprise. just because other countries to doesn't mean we should do the same thing. why don't we focus on free enterprise? a good energy policy, a good regulatory policy, good and port reform, let's do the things that encourage more businesses to be formed and created instead of propping up and subsidizing those the already exists? to me is the economic equivalent of giving the keys to the king to draw the drawbridge up behind him. let's bring people into the economy. i think it is representational of a philosophy that produces
less new businesses, a board mobility and free enterprise and economic growth and that is my opinion. could this thing be reformed? of course, would be better than the senate bill? yes but at the end of the day i really do believe there are so many things we should be dedicating taxpayer resources to than -- >> anything that you are doing for the reform bill? >> i don't know. i look at it when i see it. >> the immigration debate, between house republicans and the president, the health care law implementation can you see any dynamics in the next two years warehouse republicans might support some sort of immigration overhaul whether it is more targeted? >> it is hard to see in this climate. it really is. we need to and we will do this
on thursday, need to deal narrowly with the border crisis but because of the distrust of the president in enforcing the laws it is hard to see how republicans can come together with a solution we expect the president to enforce the laws. you know the i am a fan of immigration reform. i'm in favor of immigration reform for many years. we have a broken system that needs fixing. for the rule of law, national security and economic security. having said all of that there is no confidence or faith that the president will discharge his duties in implementing the laws as written by congress at this time. >> you talk about -- i wondered
-- you want foe's fiscal problems, do you see a problem on climate change issues, what kind of a conversation do you think the country needs to have about that subject? >> i come at the issue has an outdoorsman who believes in conservation, who believes in preservation of wetlands, of habitats but when i see the debate about climate change coming down to advocating reforms or regulations or policies that won't even solve the problem of the end up doing is making the u.s. economy less competitive, taking jobs and they are extremely regressive. they take money away from low-income people who depend on
supposedly income for their livelihood and so when i see for instance the new coal regulation coming from the administration which i believe is outside the confines of the law, when i see ideas for new cap and trade policies, they don't even move the needle to much of a degree, no pun intended, to solve the problem. i don't see a solution here. i see an excuse to grow government, raise taxes and slow down economic growth and put us at a competitive disadvantage with our mission--international competitors who will never do this to their economy. >> you don't see it as a real problem? >> trying to remember some of these ideas like cap and trade, to lower, move the temperature by 1 degree in 100 years or something like that.
climate change occurs no matter what. the question is can the federal government do something about it and i would argue the federal government with all these tax and regulatory schemes can't, doesn't and you will end up hurting our country, our people, especially low-income individuals. >> we go next to you as news. >> congressman. the leadership, all the talk about impeachment coming from democrats in the white house, what do you make of republicans favoring this? >> this is a ridiculous gambit by the president and his political team to try to change the narrative, raise money and turn off air base for an
upcoming election they feel won't go their way and i will leave it at that. >> kevin hall. >> under the microscope, and a little bit, what do you make of what was given in the circle of funding to change the narrative from your perspective, and cropped up in terms of that. >> they get a big large portion of that. >> what they couldn't get. >> boeing can do well without that. i believe any of these companies can do extremely well on their
own and i would rather advocate reforms and regulatory reforms. making the american economy more competitive. all the main factors, not just some but all of our companies are better positioned for the global economy. >> sam is one of the most conscientious people i have ever known in public affairs. he is a great conservative. won't comment on specifics of what the state has done because i am not well versed on exactly what these bills have done. i think sam is going to get reelected. i know a little bit about internal splits and sam is a great conservative reformer and i think he will get reelected. >> of what i am more interested in is your thoughts that cutting back the revenue hasn't
happened. >> i don't know the story in kansas. the people -- there is a redefinition of supply side economics, not all tax cuts are the same. i don't know the facts but not all facts are the same. that is why we have economic modeling that shows the rate reductions produce more economic growth, more feedback and tax credits so would is very important you understand the economics behind tax reform. in my opinion, a properly structured tax reform can increase economic growth and job creation especially at a time when we are taxing our companies and tax reforms are at a huge competitive disadvantage and lowering tax rates across the board clearly increase economic growth. in many cases will produce more
revenues. and the way to view these is to run the economic policies and see which ones work the best. >> i wonder about the capacity -- ridiculous gambit by the president but how would you characterize bigger banners? do you agree there is little chance of legal standing, and firing at the democratic -- >> it is a responsible -- won't comment on the court. i just don't know. i won't project what that will be. the constitution gives the legislative branch in number of resources and avenues to tried to check power from the executive branch. the framers gave us a separation of powers to check each other.
unfortunately, the primary power, the legislative branch has the power first, is being denied because the senate chose to stand up for the executive branch. that is frustration number one. number 2 on the constitution also gives us the great idea about our constitution as it is it is self-government under the rule of law and that means government by consent. elections, the best way the constitution gives us to express self-government and government by consent. that is another very important tool the constitution gives us. what john is doing is expressing frustration that we are not using the power first so he is trying to stand up for congressional prerogatives and that is why the lawsuit has intellectual merits because we want to show we are not going to take this lying down. the president is issuing executive orders and regulations
that exceed parameters of the statutes that gave the authority in the first place so is important to make that distinction and that is why we vote for it because i stand with the speaker in thinking the president exceeded his authority but there are many other ways, let's make sure the we don't serve a temptation the supreme court is the final arbiter, a superior branch of government all things constitutional. that is not the case. that is what i said before, we have other avenues that we ought to be pursuing that harry reid is not giving us the ability to do that. >> senator mcconnell talking about a strategy on this. the administration, the outside party for the third time waited on this. looks like a political reform.
>> i won't comments on these particular move, only that we are all people whose work an oath to serve and protect the constitution alarmed at the extent the president has gone to circumvent the constitution. let's make it very clear that there are a number of avenues the framers gave us, the people and the legislative branch to deal with this and many avenues that being pursued because we are concerned that he exceeded his power. >> mr. dickerson. >> the conversation on poverty, most of which you had. is very coarse the conversation will have, has there been a criticism of what you offered where you said nothing is done, that is a good idea or i got that wrong or that is an interesting idea but in terms of -- >> that is what i want.
so far it has been a pretty good response. i guess i would say that occurred before i wrote this. mandatory minimums. i've learned a lot from my travels around the country that when almost half go back to prison with in three years of getting out of prison the current system is not working and also the mandatory minimums, we had a policy overcorrection that needs to be dialed back and you need to give judges more discretion and we are not saying lower the score because i think there are better ways of getting people not only to pay their debt to society but become more productive members of society once they have paid their debt. there was some -- i looked at my own positions in this arena before putting this plan out there and this plan reflects that so i hope to do more of
that as time goes on so we are -- some reporter was asking if i am drafting a bill in introducing it tomorrow? the whole purpose was to do a discussion draft to get a conversation going and get feedback and then do legislating and we adjust beginning that. what i hope to learn from constructive criticism on how to do this, i talked to members on the floor about their ideas, how to pay for the e idc and how to do accreditation reform which i think is important and some of these are not federal but noteworthy like licensing reform. that is a barrier to entry of people getting into careers. >> i am struck by the strong language you use here, circumvent the constitution and no confidence he will faithfully execute the laws.
first of all, haven't other presidents and? i remember president bush's administration, president bush used to issue signing statements, and not going to carry out and do this. what is so different here? why don't you do that? >> it does not rise to high crime and misdemeanor level. there's a huge difference of opinion which can be litigated in the elections which should be litigated through appropriations and others being pursued but in this case the president has exceeded the statutory boundaries, health care is a perfect example, there executive orders within the boundaries of
statutes to execute laws, that is one thing but when you do things, regulations and executive orders, the clear letter of the law, that was lawmaking which occurs in the legislative branch, not the executive branch. >> you mention the resulting elections, a democratic president and recent standards. and get together and do something. what sign that this house is represented, and why don't you pass bills in the house, a coalition rather than fix the majority or majority things, and
nothing will do this? >> it brought us together. and the process is back on in the first time in a number of years. the senate has chosen not to bring a single appropriation bill on the floor, and we passed number ourselves. we have not seen corresponding willingness to legislate on the other side of the rotunda in the senate. the transportation bill, we had an issue in the senate, the house in a bipartisan way came up with a reform that prevents them from going dry, you actually look at the votes, and bipartisan support. skills that is another example. we have jobs for a number of years, we believe the federal government posted job training has not measured success,
duplicative, redundant, 49 programs across nine agencies so we worked with our colleagues in the senate and democrats in the house to come up with common sense solutions focused on getting people the skills they need to get the jobs they want and we have signature job-training legislation going into law. there is example after example of making government work. and compromise principal and getting things done. a lot of people want to focus on tomorrow where we fight but we ignore where we get things done. >> more montgomerie. >> i will badger you again about tax inversion. to solve this problem right now, can't wait for an agreement on tax reform. house republicans have taken the position that we can't do a patch, we will do corporate tax
reform. democrat said let's do corporate tax reform, republicans say no, we have to do individual -- do we need to do something to prevent companies from fleeing overseas and if so, what? if not, is there any chance you can set aside the gridlock on individual and focus on corporate? >> we had this conversation yesterday. >> first of all, for three years, and can't remember it but year, it is very clear. try to do some short-term pass and accelerating, foreign companies buying u.s. companies. we will actually make problems worse, we will make things worse
off and lose even more u.s. companies. i live in wisconsin. and talk about what is not a u.s.-based company anymore as opposed to st. louis blues budweiser is a belgian company. on and on. it is not a u.s. company any more so all you will see is not necessarily u.s. companies buying it up but foreign companies buying u.s. companies. and the only way to address this is through tax reform, in a more competitive system. i would be sympathetic to the criticisms if we saw a sincere effort earlier this year from the administration on tax reform. a heroic effort to reach across the aisle to do comprehensive tax reform with the senate
democrat who is in china. the administration -- and tackling the issue of tax reform. this is not to get the issue of tax reforms, it is lack of a willing partner, markets excluded, who want to help do this. i would be more sympathetic. there are more election-year politics behind this than an actual attempt to fix the root cause of the problem which is a broken tax system. >> just briefly on every single form, we have this approach to where you differ? >> i don't know the answer to the question. and what they put together.
the lead bill, the bill haas scrub them looked at and legislation and recidivism reform is important and should come along side with. and the smart approach so people learn time in different custodial arrangements by getting job training, ged, counseling and the rest. are proven track records to reduce recidivism and people serving time, using that time and members of the society. and all the details with bills that are in congress right before us that deserve support. >> what are the chances of
welfare reform? >> a good conversation to get feedback and i always like to mature the conversation, get people engage, get feedback, and legislation in that session. >> 2016, the social security disability, an opportunity to do something. >> we have to reform that in the next system. and the disability community, to make sure the program is working as intended. >> i am just telling people -- you are next. >> the republican alternative to
high schools to use it for the restoration? >> i think that is something we should look at. i would like to see the bill but it is something we need to consider. i think doesn't rand have a bill? >> it is a state issue but the question, i am endorsing licensing, something to tackle. the way i look at this, i want to encourage the notion people should get a second chance at life. to get from where they are too a
better life they aspire for themselves. something we champion in society. >> i am sorry -- >> the poverty plan, does every person resisting welfare have a case manager? would that be what sounds to this day, inevitably -- it will do is that what previously went to actually put it in poor people's pocket. >> we looked at that point quite a bit. the wrong way to look at this is take just the federal money and assumed some management and assume that is how it works. the point is to do this in
conjunction with private sector, public sector, charitable sector, leverage other dollars that are already out there working at odds with the federal government to work alongside so we are all pulling together. one of the problems i see in this area is it is a disjointed. you have for profits, not-for-profits, charities, local governments, federal government's going in different directions. why don't we leverage the best ideas in the same direction and combine those. mining dollars from the charitable sector from other local governments with the federal funding streams to achieve the goals we are trying to achieve and what we're saying is we are not mandating case management, one of the things we recommend but give the state the ability to try different ideas. when we have done that when it
has been tailored and focused, and with customization and leveraging other sources of funding, that to me is the most effective approach to take. you have to broaden your understanding of the proposal before looking at that notion. the alternative is to stick with the status quo. the status quo isn't working. >> we are going to go to tax notes and susan page from usa today. >> your proposal is similar to what i proposed. any avenue where you can fill out -- >> we disagree on the pay force and this is something for the next session. there are some reforms that are needed but i do believe -- i
want to get this right. 20% of young people from 21 through 24 are either not working or not even in school. we have a real problem with labor force participation rates among the very people we want to get going and that is why i think this it which does have success, it does improve rewards, it does pull people into the work force, this is an area we ought to be able to come to get there and not have a debate, let's go out and find spending we can agree is duplicative of corporate welfare to pay for doing this and that is an area where i had very productive democrats, we can make a difference next year. >> a question. >> the 2016 election -- >> i don't want to give a time line. >> hard to see how that would --
when you think about the issue, working on this, do you think it is also essentials the -- >> let me get to the immigration for a brief moment. if we are starting to secure the border, if measures are being put in place and federal government doing its job then maybe you can have confidence building measures to improve the outcome but that is not where we are right now. on gun legislation i think our efforts are better focused on treating mental illness. tim murphy has done a heroic efforts at trying to bring together comprehensive reform to how we treat illness in society. that is where our efforts ought to be placed more than laws that restrict second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
that is the issue that has been ignored too much and made partisan in the house for one reason i don't understand. we ought to move the murphy legislation which has had good bipartisan support which deals with the root problem we have been experiencing which is mental illness that is improperly treated or improperly identified. >> we have a minute or two left so we will go to mr. nicholson, go ahead rick quickly. >> trying to take your analysis to the 30,000 level, more income mobility. people going up the ladder. the administration is talking about income inequality, raising the minimum wage, things like that, working on the spread between rich and for versus the individuals in poverty. why do you think it is so important to work on income
mobility than in committee quality. >> i want economic growth. you want a faster growing economy and most of those ideas will serve slow economic growth. the job creation, but reduce income mobility. we look at this -- i look at it perhaps differently. if you are going to go 30,000 feet. our goal should not be to look at life in the economy as a fixed static pie where the government needs to redistribute slices more accurately. the goal should be to grow the pie for everybody so that we have more economic mobility and more job creation and those ideas in many cases end up doing more harm than good in that they slow down economic growth, reduce job creation and that that is nothing people on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. we should be focused on helping people rise, focus on opportunity, removing barriers
that make it harder for people to improve themselves in life and all the while no substitute for economic growth, no substitute for pro-growth policies that created faster economy, more opportunity for everybody and those ideas frustrate that idea. >> you reject the criticism of growing inequality has actually hurt economic growth? >> i reject the solutions people suggest are necessary like new taxes or even raising the minimum wage which cbo tells us could cost a million jobs. much smarter reform than minimum-wage increase. i think welfare reform 2.0 is a lot smarter than raising taxes on small businesses who would love nothing more than to grow and hire more people. >> my apologies to colleagues we didn't get to. hope you come back, whatever role you find yourself in, thank
you. >> we have that here. [inaudible conversations] >> sunday on booktv's in depth, former republican congressman from texas and presidential candidate ron paul has written more than a dozen books on politics and history with his latest, the school revolution on america's education system. join the conversation as he takes your calls, e-mails and tweets for three hours on c-span2. watch more booktv next week while congress is in recess. booktv in prime time monday at 8:30 eastern and tuesday through
friday at 8:00 featuring a wide range of topics including the middle east, immigration, marijuana and covering affairs and festivals from across the country. cv, a television for several -- serious readers. >> this weekend booktv and american history tv take you an effort across the country for the history of literary life of various locales read discovered during our cities tour including the beauty of the point roberts in bellingham, washington or the oyster industry of olympia. the history of our and the music and restoration of the supersavor f 105. the latter course of thomas edison and fort myers and hear the voices of the mormon tabernacle choir in salt lake city. today at noon eastern and c-span2's booktv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and keep public policy events and every weekend booktv for 15 years the